Amy Coney Barrett Likely Would Uphold Trump Immigration Policies, Analysts Say

If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett likely would uphold many of the Trump administration’s tougher immigration policies, including the rollback of DACA and the Remain in Mexico policy, analysts say.

{snip}

Barrett, 48, a University of Notre Dame law school professor before joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit nearly three years ago, has written decisions in three immigration-related cases.

In those immigration cases, Barrett’s decisions suggest she is a judge who interprets laws based on a rigid reading of the texts, rather than trying to decipher lawmakers’ intent.

They also suggest she takes a more conservative approach toward giving the executive branch broad authority in immigration matters, analysts say.

Those decisions indicate Barrett could side with many of the Trump administration’s immigration policies facing legal challenges, potentially tipping the Supreme Court rulings in close decisions in favor of the Trump administration.

{snip}

Given Barrett’s limited but conservative track record on immigration matters as a circuit court judge, “it would mean that the Trump administration’s decisions would be upheld” by the Supreme Court, said Angela Banks, an immigration and citizenship scholar at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

In one of three immigration cases that have come before her as a circuit court justice, however, Barrett agreed with the court’s decision that went against the Trump administration.

In that case, the 7th Circuit held that immigration judges can temporarily put deportation cases on hold through what is known as “administrative closure” while immigrants pursue remaining in the country legally through other forms of relief outside the courts.

Barrett wrote the decision in the the 7th Circuit’s unanimous ruling, which rejected former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ earlier directive telling immigration judges they can’t administratively close cases while petitions for other forms of relief are pending. {snip}

{snip}

Barrett’s strongly worded decision shows “she’s not a rubber stamp for the Trump administration on immigration issues,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge now the resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports many of the Trump administrations policies restricting immigration.

In two other immigration-related cases, however, Barrett’s writings in decisions suggest she is a “textualist” — a judge who employs a rigid reading of the law’s text. {snip}

{snip}

In a 2-1 decision in June, a 7th Circuit panel upheld a decision that blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a policy in Illinois that sought to expand the “public charge rule,” giving the government more leeway to deny permanent residency green cards to immigrants nationwide if they had relied on public assistance.

{snip}

Barrett, who Trump appointed in 2017, dissented from her colleagues on the 7th Circuit panel and defended the Trump administration’s interpretation of the public charge rule.

{snip}

In another immigration-related case, Barrett wrote the opinion in a 7th Circuit decision that agreed that the wife of a U.S. citizen could not appeal a consular official’s decision denying her a visa.

{snip}

Barrett’s opinion showed an unwillingness to waiver from the precedent, indicating a strong deference to the executive branch’s broad authority in immigration matters, Banks said.

{snip}

While that legal perspective could favor the Trump administration’s immigration policies that come before the Supreme Court, “theoretically” it could also benefit Democratic presidents who use their executive authority to implement more liberal immigration policies in the future, she noted.

{snip}